Welcome To The FECC Forum - More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Anything about ElvisMore than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:31 am

Overall he was a good manager, did what he had to do, look out for his star. He was a very dedicated manager. As any manager he made mistakes. In my view they are:

Let Elvis make movies much too long

Made a big mistake with the song rights sell out in 1974?

Prevented Elvis from touring abroad

Had Elvis stay in Vegas too long (should have stopped after September 1970 in my view)

The way he let Hill & Range run the 'show' song-wise cost Elvis many a great song (EXCELLENT article on this in latest EM&HM by Luther Moore)

Cheers,Simon

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:33 am

lvs4evr wrote:I think from the start ELVIS and his parents knew exactly what to expect with the colonel

Yeahhhh, riiiiight. They knew exactly what to expect with the colonel.

Elvis was still basically just a kid with only a high school education.His parents were poor with limited education and from what I've read Gladys didn't trust Colonel Parker from the very beginning.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:40 am

Simon1 wrote:Made a big mistake with the song rights sell out in 1974?

Prevented Elvis from touring abroad

Had Elvis stay in Vegas too long

1973

Colonel was an illegal alien and couldn't leave the country himself

Colonel had an addiction to gambling

Other than those things Colonel was the best thing since sliced bread!

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:41 am

From a creative and artistic standpoint, Tom Parker was an ineffective manager from 1962 onward. His management of Elvis Presley from 1964-1968 was appalling. And from 1973-1977, he lowered the bar to atrocious standards.

Last edited by midnightx on Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:46 am

midnightx wrote:From a creative and artistic standpoint, Tom Parker was an ineffective manager from 1962 onward. His management of Elvis Presley from 1964-1968 was appalling. And from 1973-1977, he lowered the bar to appalling standards.

Not to mention his management "skills" after August 16, 1977.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:09 am

midnightx wrote:From a creative and artistic standpoint, Tom Parker was an ineffective manager from 1962 onward. His management of Elvis Presley from 1964-1968 was appalling. And from 1973-1977, he lowered the bar to atrocious standards.

You nailed it.The only possible exception was Aloha in '73.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:10 am

It's hard to really know because we're looking in from the outside and we can only go by what others have written. I believe the way Col. Parker shafted Hank Snow at the very beginning of his association with Elvis tells me all I need to know. He could be a ruthless person. Gladys knew it and had more brains than Vernon and Elvis combined.

He did a great job of promoting Elvis at the beginning but it's probable any great AR man in the business could have done as much or more. Parker always ran Elvis' career as if he had to make a quick kill today because his client wouldn't last. Some of his schemes seemed smart at first but cost his client plenty in the long run. Saving money on good scripts and good songs seemed like a great idea until people stopped paying for dreck. After the heady first few years, Elvis' artistic integrity should have been as big a consideration as the short term remuneration. Elvis would have been better off selling twice as many records of good songs with no publishing cut than he was owning all of the substandard stuff.

The mystery to me will always be Elvis' acquiescence to Parker's domination. The idea that Parker could stop Lieber and Stoller from influencing Elvis or that Steve Binder could never get to him again. I would like to think that I wouldn't have stood for something like that. Elvis should have been a partner in mapping out his career. It appears he was little more than (as someone else once stated) a highly paid shift worker. The idea he couldn't do a Laugh In episode or try to get a decent movie part because his manager said no. I'll never understand it unless we're to accept that Elvis was easily manipulated and forced into a shell by his manager's preying on his insecurities. It's been said that is exactly what Parker did and that makes him a bad guy in my book.

It appears to me, overall, that Colonel Parker may have been the worst thing that could have happened to Elvis

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:16 am

not another Parker thread ,,

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:22 am

It's almost as if Elvis had ' sold his soul to the Devil (Parker)'

Scott n Georgia

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:33 am

promiseland wrote:not another Parker thread ,,

It's getting hard to come up with original threads here. He's been gone a long time.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:43 am

scottngeorgia wrote:It's almost as if Elvis had ' sold his soul to the Devil (Parker)'

Scott n Georgia

The is the best answer ever to a Parker Thread!

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:51 am

promiseland wrote:not another Parker thread ,,

Too late... it has already started.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:59 am

That man was a deville hypcrate

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:38 am

promiseland wrote:

scottngeorgia wrote:It's almost as if Elvis had ' sold his soul to the Devil (Parker)'

Scott n Georgia

The is the best answer ever to a Parker Thread!

Yes. Still his client allowed himself to be screwed over. Why?

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:17 am

If Parker never existed what would have become of Elvis.

Would be among the hundreds of southern rockabilly artists who never made it above the Mason/Dixieline?

Can anyone name another manager who could establish an entertainer so powerful that remains so prominent 34 years after his death?

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:26 am

Where's Luuk?

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:28 am

Just on the final pages of Last Train to Memphis... and in those early years it was quite obvious that Tom Parker was instrumental in helping Elvis achieve his success... through his personal contacts in the entertainment industry, his control over how Elvis was exposed to the public and getting him on television and into movies. I couldn't really care less about what kind of a person he was because his relationship with Elvis was purely professional. As the years went on, its also quite apparent that Tom Parker did little more for his client than keep him making money... regardless of how unhappy his client may have been. But I would blame Elvis more than Parker for that...

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:31 am

KiwiAlan wrote:If Parker never existed what would have become of Elvis.

Would be among the hundreds of southern rockabilly artists who never made it above the Mason/Dixieline?

Can anyone name another manager who could establish an entertainer so powerful that remains so prominent 34 years after his death?

You give Parker credit for that? I give Elvis credit for what he became. Name me another artist who could have survived what Parker did to Elvis' career.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:13 am

Ask anyone in the biz if they'd want him! {eye rolling}

The best song about him was not written about him. No one knew yet. But it is perfect. Chilingly so.

"I Pity The Poor Immigrant"

You would swear it's about him tho that was impossible.

rjm

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:24 am

midnightx wrote:From a creative and artistic standpoint, Tom Parker was an ineffective manager from 1962 onward. His management of Elvis Presley from 1964-1968 was appalling. And from 1973-1977, he lowered the bar to atrocious standards.

The thruth is sad but hard. Elvis went to iconic proportions despite Parkers management.

1. Parker had Elvis making money with mediocre films for too long.2. Parker cancelled a 42 city tour in 1962 because RCA would not sponsor the tour. 3. Parker had Elvis always cut the bare minumum in the recording studio because he wanted RCA to be desparate for new material.4. Parker put his artist in a position to give up any artistic ambition over profits which was very short sighted.5. Parker held Elvis from touring the world.6. Parker insisted RCA should not include hit singles on Elvis' albums so people were forced to buy more 'product'. In reality album sales were lower than could have been.7. It was Parker who proposed Elvis stronger studio work should end up as bonus material on low quality and short running soundtracks.8. It was Parker who agreed upon the rediculous idea of smashing Elvis catalogue onto Camden budget albums. Another blow for an recording artist to be taken seriously (Burning Love & Hits From His Movies).9.It was Parker who did agree with a rediculous 3 albums a year record deal.10. Parker insisted on continuing the Hill & Range deal making money for Elvis by receiving part of the copyrights of songs. In reality it prevented Elvis from getting quality material.11. From 1973 it was Parker who lowered the bar for new tour venues continously and made Elvis perform in small cities in the US while he could tour the world.12. It was Parker who continously increased his management share and in the end basically robbed Elvis from his hard earned money.13. It was Parker who in the end sold Elvis' entire back catalogue for a bargain. A case that even today is still the subject of legal action.14. It was Parker who did not have any other long term policy with Elvis than selling Elvis like the first circus clown that kept the money coming in.15. It was Parker who could prevent Elvis from agreeing with a CBS deal because of being in terrible shape in 1977.

But in the end we must not forget:

It was Elvis who agreed with this all or was just careless about his career and future!

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:47 am

stevelecher wrote:It's hard to really know because we're looking in from the outside and we can only go by what others have written. I believe the way Col. Parker shafted Hank Snow at the very beginning of his association with Elvis tells me all I need to know. He could be a ruthless person. Gladys knew it and had more brains than Vernon and Elvis combined.

He did a great job of promoting Elvis at the beginning but it's probable any great AR man in the business could have done as much or more. Parker always ran Elvis' career as if he had to make a quick kill today because his client wouldn't last. Some of his schemes seemed smart at first but cost his client plenty in the long run. Saving money on good scripts and good songs seemed like a great idea until people stopped paying for dreck. After the heady first few years, Elvis' artistic integrity should have been as big a consideration as the short term remuneration. Elvis would have been better off selling twice as many records of good songs with no publishing cut than he was owning all of the substandard stuff.

The mystery to me will always be Elvis' acquiescence to Parker's domination. The idea that Parker could stop Lieber and Stoller from influencing Elvis or that Steve Binder could never get to him again. I would like to think that I wouldn't have stood for something like that. Elvis should have been a partner in mapping out his career. It appears he was little more than (as someone else once stated) a highly paid shift worker. The idea he couldn't do a Laugh In episode or try to get a decent movie part because his manager said no. I'll never understand it unless we're to accept that Elvis was easily manipulated and forced into a shell by his manager's preying on his insecurities. It's been said that is exactly what Parker did and that makes him a bad guy in my book.

It appears to me, overall, that Colonel Parker may have been the worst thing that could have happened to Elvis

Could you add just one more paragraph?

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:39 am

Alexander wrote:1. Parker had Elvis making money with mediocre films for too long2. Parker cancelled a 42 city tour in 1962 because RCA would not sponsor the tour. 3. Parker had Elvis always cut the bare minumum in the recording studio because he wanted RCA to be desparate for new material.4. Parker put his artist in a position to give up any artistic ambition over profits which was very short sighted.5. Parker held Elvis from touring the world.6. Parker insisted RCA should not include hit singles on Elvis' albums so people were forced to buy more 'product'. In reality album sales were lower than could have been.7. It was Parker who proposed Elvis stronger studio work should end up as bonus material on low quality and short running soundtracks.8. It was Parker who agreed upon the rediculous idea of smashing Elvis catalogue onto Camden budget albums. Another blow for an recording artist to be taken seriously (Burning Love & Hits From His Movies).9.It was Parker who did agree with a rediculous 3 albums a year record deal.10. Parker insisted on continuing the Hill & Range deal making money for Elvis by receiving part of the copyrights of songs. In reality it prevented Elvis from getting quality material.11. From 1973 it was Parker who lowered the bar for new tour venues continously and made Elvis perform in small cities in the US while he could tour the world.12. It was Parker who continously increased his management share and in the end basically robbed Elvis from his hard earned money.13. It was Parker who in the end sold Elvis' entire back catalogue for a bargain. A case that even today is still the subject of legal action.14. It was Parker who did not have any other long term policy with Elvis than selling Elvis like the first circus clown that kept the money coming in.15. It was Parker who could prevent Elvis from agreeing with a CBS deal because of being in terrible shape in 1977.!

01.Elvis signed some long-term contracts, which made him the best paid actor in Hollywood. There are a lot of worse things, that can happen in your life. As far as I know Elvis signed a contract with MGM in 1964/65, so if he was so fed up with all those movies, why did he sign this contract?

02. If Elvis had wanted to go on tour in 1962, he would have done so. But the truth is, that he earned a lot more money by doing another movie, than by going on tour.

03) What's the problem with not overfeeding your employer?

04) Elvis gave up his artistic ambitions himself when he started with SUN RECORDS. He wanted to be a ballad singer, but Sam Phillips had him do uptempo songs. If Elvis had to chose between art and money, he always took the money.

05) If Elvis would have done a world tour, he would have done so. And by the way, why go abroad when one is able to earn the same amount of money in the US? It just generates more costs and therefore reduces the earnings.

06) No artist had sold more records than Elvis Presley. So the decision wasn't the worst one.

07) By the time this decision was made, the soundtracks sold better than the regular studio albums.

08) The CAMDEN albums earned Elvis a lot of money -many are certified Platinum- without having to do anything. Of course he could have said "no way, I'm an artist", but once again he took the money.

09) It was Elvis, who signed that 3 albums per year record deal.

10) The H&R deal earned Elvis a lot of additional money. And by the way, he still could have recorded any song he wanted to. It's not the fault of Parker or H&R that he didn't do so more often.

11) I don't think, the venues Elvis played from 1973 onwards got smaller.

12) That's right, but Elvis could have refused to sign such contracts, if he hadn't considered the Colonel to be worth the money.

13) As far as I know it was Vernon Presley, who told the Colonel that his son was in desperate need of cash. Of course this business decision is downright stupid, but Elvis wanted the deal and gladly took the money. If the artist wants to sell his rights to royalties, what should the manager do? But Elvis still received royalties for these recordings, because they were published by the companies he had shares in.

14) Parker sold Elvis' output. That's the job of a manager. For my taste his way of selling him was too cheap, but it obviously worked. And if Elvis wouldn't have liked it, he could have changed it. Maybe Elvis didn't like it too, but if that was the case, he obviously decided to take the money.

15) Elvis wanted the CBS deal, because it made him 750,000 bucks without having to do anything he didn't do anyway. For him it was easy money and I guess at the time Parker didn't think Elvis would survive the airing anyway. In 1977 Elvis was a dead man walking and the Colonel knew.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:59 pm

The Welz wrote:

Alexander wrote:1. Parker had Elvis making money with mediocre films for too long2. Parker cancelled a 42 city tour in 1962 because RCA would not sponsor the tour. 3. Parker had Elvis always cut the bare minumum in the recording studio because he wanted RCA to be desparate for new material.4. Parker put his artist in a position to give up any artistic ambition over profits which was very short sighted.5. Parker held Elvis from touring the world.6. Parker insisted RCA should not include hit singles on Elvis' albums so people were forced to buy more 'product'. In reality album sales were lower than could have been.7. It was Parker who proposed Elvis stronger studio work should end up as bonus material on low quality and short running soundtracks.8. It was Parker who agreed upon the rediculous idea of smashing Elvis catalogue onto Camden budget albums. Another blow for an recording artist to be taken seriously (Burning Love & Hits From His Movies).9.It was Parker who did agree with a rediculous 3 albums a year record deal.10. Parker insisted on continuing the Hill & Range deal making money for Elvis by receiving part of the copyrights of songs. In reality it prevented Elvis from getting quality material.11. From 1973 it was Parker who lowered the bar for new tour venues continously and made Elvis perform in small cities in the US while he could tour the world.12. It was Parker who continously increased his management share and in the end basically robbed Elvis from his hard earned money.13. It was Parker who in the end sold Elvis' entire back catalogue for a bargain. A case that even today is still the subject of legal action.14. It was Parker who did not have any other long term policy with Elvis than selling Elvis like the first circus clown that kept the money coming in.15. It was Parker who could prevent Elvis from agreeing with a CBS deal because of being in terrible shape in 1977.!

01.Elvis signed some long-term contracts, which made him the best paid actor in Hollywood. There are a lot of worse things, that can happen in your life. As far as I know Elvis signed a contract with MGM in 1964/65, so if he was so fed up with all those movies, why did he sign this contract?

02. If Elvis had wanted to go on tour in 1962, he would have done so. But the truth is, that he earned a lot more money by doing another movie, than by going on tour.

03) What's the problem with not overfeeding your employer?

04) Elvis gave up his artistic ambitions himself when he started with SUN RECORDS. He wanted to be a ballad singer, but Sam Phillips had him do uptempo songs. If Elvis had to chose between art and money, he always took the money.

05) If Elvis would have done a world tour, he would have done so. And by the way, why go abroad when one is able to earn the same amount of money in the US? It just generates more costs and therefore reduces the earnings.

06) No artist had sold more records than Elvis Presley. So the decision wasn't the worst one.

07) By the time this decision was made, the soundtracks sold better than the regular studio albums.

08) The CAMDEN albums earned Elvis a lot of money -many are certified Platinum- without having to do anything. Of course he could have said "no way, I'm an artist", but once again he took the money.

09) It was Elvis, who signed that 3 albums per year record deal.

10) The H&R deal earned Elvis a lot of additional money. And by the way, he still could have recorded any song he wanted to. It's not the fault of Parker or H&R that he didn't do so more often.

11) I don't think, the venues Elvis played from 1973 onwards got smaller.

12) That's right, but Elvis could have refused to sign such contracts, if he hadn't considered the Colonel to be worth the money.

13) As far as I know it was Vernon Presley, who told the Colonel that his son was in desperate need of cash. Of course this business decision is downright stupid, but Elvis wanted the deal and gladly took the money. If the artist wants to sell his rights to royalties, what should the manager do? But Elvis still received royalties for these recordings, because they were published by the companies he had shares in.

14) Parker sold Elvis' output. That's the job of a manager. For my taste his way of selling him was too cheap, but it obviously worked. And if Elvis wouldn't have liked it, he could have changed it. Maybe Elvis didn't like it too, but if that was the case, he obviously decided to take the money.

15) Elvis wanted the CBS deal, because it made him 750,000 bucks without having to do anything he didn't do anyway. For him it was easy money and I guess at the time Parker didn't think Elvis would survive the airing anyway. In 1977 Elvis was a dead man walking and the Colonel knew.

Unfortunately you are - just like Parker - only focusing on the money side. Parker did not have an artistic view nor a long term vision and Elvis just did not seem to care. Parker IS the worst thing that could happen to a careless guy like Elvis.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:33 pm

The idea that Elvis wouldn't have made it without Parker are delusional. He was already setting off riots across the South, an object of attention in national magazines like Billboard and sparking on the spot conversions from all manner of country singers from Roy Orbison, to Bob Luman to Buddy Holly.

I do think Parker did a good job of helping to establish Elvis nationally, getting Elvis' early lucrative movie deals, setting Elvis as topic of national conversation in the bidding war for his contracts, getting him on tv, and securing a nice early deal with RCA. Also, many of Parker's decisions, Elvis went along with willingly like the formula movies and the publishing deal. Parker always takes abuse because of this latter provision and later on when the hits stopped coming, it should have ceased. However, this is where the money is in the music field and to present the idea that Elvis who was the important cog in the hitmaking equation should make less money than his record company, the song publishers, the songwriters is wrong headed.

And it should be also noted that Parker actually went to bat for longer LPs after It Happened at the World's Fair. The bonus song idea came about because this LP was so short.

That all being said, he was a very selfish man who consistently put his own benefit above his clients. He had zero, or less than zero interest in helping create quality work. He was also probably over his head in managing an important Hollywood star as Elvis certainly was in the early 1960s and a national rock star in the 1970s. For all his reputation as gambler he was often astonishingly risk adverse only ever gambling when a tried and true formula failed and he was pushed to desperation. Even his way with a buck is overrated when you consider that he only made low score for certain profits. For instance, Viva Las Vegas generated more rentals than any Elvis movie to that time, it was one of the hits of the mid-1960s behind big blockbusters like Dr. Zhivago and The Sound of Music but ahead of 90 percent of Hollywood product. However, he and Elvis didn't make the same profit margin as they did with the quickie Kissin' Cousins because a lot more was spent on co-stars, directors, and locations. So the formula was to follow KC. Parker, though, could have just as easily chose the other road. Since a little more was spent on VLV and it brought in a lot more, if Parker had been on his toes, maybe with more money spent on co-stars, locations, songs etc. he and Elvis could have shared participation in a Sound of Music like grosser. But he never tried. In the 1970s Elvis rate at the Hilton was one of the lower rates on the strip. He never pushed RCA for a major renegotiation on the deal. In 1960 Ray Charles landed a deal with ABC that made Elvis' look like mud. Yet at his peak Charles did not surpass Elvis as a record seller. There's absolutely, at least until the Beatles came along, that Elvis should not have had the very best deal in the industry. And even after the Beatles came on the scene, he was still year to year a top seller. By the 1970s his deal was mundane.

Defenders of the sale of royalty rights are also somewhat delusional. That was not the only way to generate some quick income for Elvis. As it was, Elvis himself took home only about what he made after a few months on the road. This was because Parker had an unhealthy relationship with RCA and the movie studios and again put their needs ahead of Elvis.

One of the things that has often distressed me about Elvis' movie career is that the studios had Elvis Presley to work with and all they came up with was Blue Hawaii, Clambake, Harum Scarum etc. The best pleasant entertainments, The worst slap dash low level exploitation. However, the studios only bear a tiny part of the blame. There were actually plenty of interesting offers West Side Story, Thunder Road, Midnight Cowboy, the True Story Of Jesse James and of course L&S' Walk on the Wild Side. Parker scotched them all.

His alienation of Leiber and Stoller further costs him money because songs from that very commercially successful team became few and far between and then they were usually retreads. Limiting contact with people like these and Binder also ensured Elvis boredom and further hindered interesting commercial and artistic opportunities. As loyal as the guys were, the way that Elvis was going to keep continually moving forward was trading thoughts with people of a similar artistic temperament. Of course, Parker knew this and that's why he kept them from Elvis. If Elvis isn't aware of the possibilities, then he's not aware that Parker couldn't do his job.

And finally passport or no passport, drug problem or no drug problem, guns or no guns, Elvis should have toured overseas. There was just too much money to be made. If Parker was a real money first man, he would have made this happen, he'd have begged Elvis if he had to. One Japanese promoter said that in Japan they would have paid $100 to see Elvis. $100 in the 1970s. It was a King's ransom. Yet the same old dollar in the same old way.

So he did a good job early on. Elvis was down with some of his dicier or more controversial decisions. But after the army, Elvis' career had outgrown his limited capabilities. And that ignores his many conflicts of interests and the fact that he sold Elvis as some kind of parlor trick and thereby minimized the public's ability to take him seriously.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:47 pm

Some people should re-read Peter Guralnick's epic "The Last Train to Memphis". It's a book which fully illustrates that without Colonel Parker, Elvis would never have been the Elvis we saw in the 1950s. I don't think there possibly could've been a greater manager for those formative years of his career. Almost every move Parker was making throughout the 50's was ahead of his time and perfect for Elvis.

The problems arise after Elvis got out the army. The wrong path was chosen by Parker and it nearly cost Elvis his whole career. Of course, Elvis wasn't to know at the time in 1960 that things would soon go so terribly wrong so there was no reason to suggest he should get rid of Parker. In fact Parker had done a tremendous job whilst Elvis was in the army of maintining the profile of Presley's career.

The problem arises in those very first few films of 1960 and into 1961. Elvis should've made a stand. He should of set a precedent to his manager that he didn't want to perform mediocre and poor songs and that he didn't want to perform in weak movies and with weak scripts. As soon as Elvis started to get pushed around and manipulated by Parker, and doing things that basically Elvis Presley shouldn't have been doing, Parker had Elvis where he wanted him. And while the profits still rolled in, the movies were still succesful and Elvis still sold records by the bucket loads - Elvis couldn't complain anymore, because he was already agreeing to record and act in these pieces of sh*t.

I'm not going to go into the more complex and worse situations that happened in the later 60s and 70s - because we all know too well what happened there. But basically the point is, Parker was fine up 'til a point somewhere in the early 1960s when really he sould have gone then.

There's the whole complex situation that meant Elvis basically was never going to fire the Colonel anyway. Due to a crushing inferiority complex and irrational fear that his career would one day collapse and he'd lose all his money and go back to the life he grew up with - Parker became something akin ot a lucky charm. Elvis had entrusted his whole life and career into his man, and he could never let him go. Elvis had an intense loyalty to his manager and they'd been together practically since the very beginning, Elvis always felt this large debt to the fact that without the Colonel he'd never have been as big as he was. Coupled with the fact Vernon felt exactly the same, it was a real problem issue. Both Elvis and Vernon were totally naive to certan 'ways of the world', especially when it came to business and show-business.

And we mustn't forget that although certainly we can infer from certain business deals, how Elvis had been ****** over by the colonel throughout his career, and how in many ways it seems the Colonel almost deliberately stifled Elvis' growth and expansion as a person and an artist throughout the 1960s and 1970s - I genuinely don't believe the Colonel was a bad man. He loved Elvis. Parker just was too old, too set in his ways (and they were odd ways even when he was young), and too out of touch with the ever-changing show-business world to continue managing an act like Presley. The failings he made on Elvis were more borne out of the fact he just wasn't very good at his job anymore than any evil or spiteful menace. Parker started developing his own problems in the 1970s, especially relating to gambling addiction and his debts to Casinos that impaired his position as working as manager for Elvis Presley. And the other big issue was Parker just wasn't fully appreciative of Elvis' profession as an art-form like a manager should have been. It's not that Parker deliberately stopped good songs getting to Elvis out of spite, it's that Parker genuinely believed this was the right thing to do, because in his mind, Elvis could sing any song and it could sell, so if we get the crappier songs, we can get a bigger share on them.

For Parker, it always was and always would be about Money. And Elvis didn't need that anymore. There were times when Parker was very cold-hearted and didn't care as much for Elvis as he should have done, but I think that's just how he was a man not so much anything unique against Elvis. Sure, there were many times Parker was making sure he always made a bit of money on the side for himself than was kept quiet, but Elvis had always suspected, known and even accepted this. "So what?" he thought, "if the old dog wants to make an extra few bucks so be it", Elvis was always happy with what he got and what he signed up to and that's how it always remained.

But it certainly is perhaps the most fascinating manager-artist relationship in the history of show-business over the past 50-odd years. I think to sum it up best, Colonel Parker was the best, and the worst, of managers, the world has ever seen. He built Elvis up to a position of stardom never imagined before in popular culture - and managed to somehow bit by bit not only ruin the career of the said individual, but everntually make it take his life too.